Throughout the brief history of multiculturalism in Australia , important decisions on the policy have been effected by politicians influenced by minority group interests. The great majority of the population has been allowed remarkably little input into how the policy will affect their lives and possibly their future. Academics and other holders of public office who have alluded to the inappropriateness of multiculturalism have been condemned, censured and sneered at, as usually the path of criticism offers a painful experience to any individual with the courage to engage it. Where job security has been an issue, a prospective complainant of multiculturalism confronts the added burden of re-defining his or her concept of free speech within a democratic society.
Apart from the politicians and the confines of public officialdom, what do other citizens with concerns on the social environment really think about multiculturalism? If public officials are effectively gagged from producing adverse comment, how may the observations and concerns of the broad body of the population be translated into some meaningful channel to reflect what they are thinking? Occasionally, a window of opportunity presents itself.
In February 2006, the Nine Network's television program A Current Affair conducted a viewer poll asking:

Do you believe Australia 's policy of multiculturalism should be changed?
Of the 35,000 respondents, 93% replied “yes” 1.
Of multiculturalism's many ambiguities and perplexities, it is the political silence to such a public response that is the most intriguing. Why in the face of such overwhelming public concern does the policy of multiculturalism remain untouched, unhindered and periodically reinforced by the party machinery on all sides of the political spectrum? The reason is not that politicians believe in their supremacy of judgment on a critical national issue. The reason has a more inglorious foundation – votes at election time. It is undeniable that political parties cannot ignore the threats, both overt and implied, that have created the “ethnic vote”, ensuring that Australia stumbles on with a divisive and unworkable policy affecting all levels of the community. The System of Multiculturalism
Australia is a multicultural society. All English-speaking nations are multicultural societies. But multicultural and multiculturalism are not linked by necessity – the former is a demographic mix while the latter is a system with the prime objective of serving the interests of the multicultural minorities. How that system operates, who promotes and benefits from it, how it is funded, and what problems it may create comprise the essence of the debate between those who support that system and those who oppose it.
One of the fallacies in the debate is multiculturalism's direct association with immigration. Arguing that a critic of multiculturalism will oppose immigration is incorrect. The two words are quite distinct, but one may follow the other. Further, an argument against immigration may reflect concerns about a minority group's difficulty in absorbing into a community, rather than opposing immigration per se . Multiculturalism's Failure at the Core
All societies have codes of behaviour and morality that represent their core values. Not all members of a society conform to those values, but most do. Over time, these values may change or be replaced, but when they disappear and are not replaced the result will be a diminution of behavioural standards and social decline.
Prior to 1970, Australia entertained core social values similar to other English-speaking and European nations. Following the introduction of multiculturalism, Australia 's changing core values underwent a profound mutation. The new political environment encouraged the retention of all the introduced core values, and for the past thirty years the cultural barriers of separation have created dictates by minority groups which have often been both uncompromising and selfish. These demands have been actively encouraged under the policy of multiculturalism, resulting in the reduction, and effectiveness, of Australia 's social harmony.
The old core value social system in Australia has been reduced, and gradually taking its place has been an untidy array of complex assumptions of “cultural recognition” that often reflects little or no respect for anyone's culture except one's own. The “hub” securing social order in Australia is under threat because multiculturalism has endorsed the unacceptable “picking and choosing” by minority groups of what each regards as acceptable behaviour and morality. Irrespective of a country's population mix, determining these standards is a national issue, but in Australia this principle has been allowed to flounder on the belief that a multitude of cultural persuasions will ultimately benefit all citizens. This idea, naďve at best, has proven to be an expensive farce and has prepared the groundwork for previously unimaginable consequences.
An ambiguity of multiculturalism is that the system derives from the flouting of the principles usually lauded by those who retain ultimate control over it. Democracy and its applications are usually staunchly upheld by politicians – accept for the policy of multiculturalism. Here, what the people believe or want always runs a poor second to political expediency. Transparency and financial responsibility within the multicultural apparatus follow a similar path. Multiculturalism is both divisive and dishonest. The system is brutally repressive against those who speak against it and the policy has produced net results to Australia that are astonishingly negative.
Included in the enigma of multiculturalism is the policy's focal point – respect for other cultures and their associated beliefs. This may appear an admirable gesture of mutual understanding, but in fact it is self-defeating. How may a host culture be expected to understand and respect that part of a foreign culture which is regarded by members of the host culture as being inappropriate, offensive or illegal? Acceptable forms of cruelty to animals in one society may well be illegal conduct in another. There are boundaries in the “embracing” of new cultures, a fact that the proponents of multiculturalism steadfastly avoid mentioning. Multiculturalism's Adversary – The Social Contract
Prior to 1970, Australia enjoyed a social contract – a general community acceptance of rights and responsibilities. Multiculturalism has destroyed this balance and the nation no longer enjoys the benefits of an established basis for the expectation of equal treatment under accepted laws. Until a genuine social contract is reinstated, community standards will be subject to arbitrary and possibly inappropriate rules of behaviour from the forces of selfishness and disunity. The nature of multiculturalism's objectives will ensure that an acceptable social contract is not possible under its prevailing influence.
Underpinning a social contract is the legal system – a system that engages all citizens equally. Where criminal acts are excused because of “cultural differences” there exists a fundamental cause of injustice, social disunity and inequality. Today, the operation of multiculturalism ensures that these outcomes are becoming increasingly apparent.
The purpose of this book is to highlight the reasons why the policy of multiculturalism has both failed and betrayed Australia . A failure is usually repairable, a betrayal is not. Australia , a multicultural society, never needed the policy of multiculturalism to divide its citizens and to be the source of widespread community apprehensions, doubts and fears. The following chapters will explain why.

It is encouraging that an increasing amount of intellectuals oppose multiculturalism, such as Keith Windschuttle, but unfortunately, they won't be much help to us unless they are prepared to face reality.

Unless these 'conservatives' are prepared to shed their cowardice and publically and unreservedly acknowledge the existance of racial differences, they will only serve to attract well meaning patriots who oppose the multicult but are unwilling to bite the bullet and embrace White Nationalism.

It is encouraging that an increasing amount of intellectuals oppose multiculturalism, such as Keith Windschuttle, but unfortunately, they won't be much help to us unless they are prepared to face reality.

Unless these 'conservatives' are prepared to shed their cowardice and publically and unreservedly acknowledge the existance of racial differences, they will only serve to attract well meaning patriots who oppose the multicult but are unwilling to bite the bullet and embrace White Nationalism.